OJ Simpson Trial - January 24th, 1995 - Part 1

Very good, good morning Council. Once again the Simpson matter is on record, Mr. Simpson is again present in court with his attorney, Mr. Simpson. almond mr. Shapiro Sr. Cochran Mr. Douglas Mr. Bailey people represented by Miss Clark, mr. Darden and mr. Hodgman, very well, counsel, we have just a few matters to resolve before we get to our opening statement stage. The lawyer yesterday, when the jurors retired, isn't he one of the jurors, they gave the bailiffs a note for the court and they were just curious to know whether or not, the court was going to allow them to see the Super Bowl this weekend and I indicated that yes they can and we would arrange their visiting schedule accordingly, so I understand no comment on that, okay ma'am.

Robberson, could you create a file for the jury notes? Please, the first issue to resolve is the defense's motion to allow mr. Simpson briefly addresses the jury during the defense attorney's opening statements. Very well, certainly, Your Honor, the first objection raised by the people is that this has never been done before and we have located at least two precedents in California where it has been done before the The first time occurred probably the first case of the century of the century , which was the

trial

of Clarence Darrow here in Los Angeles for forgery and bribery, even though Mr.

Darrow was represented by eminent attorney Rogers. He was allowed to

part

icipate directly in presenting the opening statement and closing argument to the jury. The second example occurred in 1972 at the

trial

of Angela Davis in Northern California, in which she, although she was represented by an attorney. She was also allowed to present opening remarks to the jury, so this is not about proposing something that has never been done before and for which there is no precedent, the second objection that the people raise is that they will be deprived of their right. of cross-examination and I think that really confuses what is being proposed here, first of all, mr.

Simpson will not testify and the standard instruction given to the jury regarding all attorneys' opening statements that they are not evidence and should not be considered as evidence by the jury will certainly apply to mr. Simpson, but what is actually proposed is not a presentation in the traditional form of an opening statement, what we are simply proposing is that mr. Simpson will be allowed to appear before jurors to introduce the defense team to the attorneys representing him and simply reiterate his plea of ​​innocence now, of course, the prosecution has no opportunity to cross-examine a statement and we think that would be quite appropriate. for the jury to hear the not guilty plea that sets this trial in motion directly from the defendant's lips this is not really that notable of a request what it really seeks to do is focus the jury's attention where it belongs in the midst of all this hubbub and it is up to the accused on trial to remind them that what is really at stake in this trial is a man's freedom.

We want you to see who that man is. We want you to listen. of him very briefly in terms of introducing himself, introducing his attorney, and reiterating his argument, the second

part

of the motion simply addresses a physical demonstration that is routinely performed in trials conducted by both the prosecution and the defense and, again, does not would involve no testimony, but I was simply presented with a preview of the evidence that will be presented in the course of the trial, which that preview would simply be from the defendant's knees regarding certain surgeries he underwent as a result of his career. athletic, it's that right, yeah, it's okay.

And have you considered the Sheriff's Department's security wishes to have their sheriff in close proximity to Mr. Simpson, this is done and how he would do it in a way that would not necessarily convey a negative message to the jury. Well, that was the reason we mentioned this in advance, your honor, so that adequate preparation could be made to appoint a substitute to this side of the courtroom if necessary, but it simply involves him walking on one side from the courtroom to the other, that's fine and unfortunately the logical place to do it is right next to the prosecutor, so we also have that proximity problem, have you considered that?

The logistics of our pitifully small courtroom work well. If the prosecution simply wants to switch sides with us, we'll be happy to move to this side of the courtroom, but you already asked. I don't think they have any. I'm worried about being near the defendant's well. I just had concerns about that as a safety concern. Alton is fine. Thank you, Attorney Shokran has discussed the issue with the sheriff and there is no problem with the sheriff being around. Well, sir. . Simpson addresses the jury or shows the need for it or I will listen to the people.

Thank you and good morning. Your Honor, first of all, this is not an opening that counsel is proposing, it is simply an attempt to capitalize on any defendants' star appeal that is currently before the jury. and get him close to them to impress them what is the probative value of a scar what does it prove to this jury in terms of his physical capabilities the night of June 12, 1994 proves nothing, in fact we all know that in the morning on June 12 he was playing golf, we also know that weeks before the murder he made an exercise video, so the probative value of that scar is zero and the misleading nature of presenting that scar to the jury is great, the inference What the defense will seek to draw from that scar is that he was incapable of performing certain physical acts, if that is what they intend to present, fine, let them present testimony that is capable of cross-examining him, but have the accused essentially testify before the jury. without taking the witness stand and being cross-examined is inappropriate cases where defendants have been able to address the jury with an opening statement on previous occasions have been cases where the defendant was acting appropriately this defendant is not in Pro curve he is represented by many attorneys, if he wants to testify before this jury then let him do it, as do everyone who has witnesses on the stand and is subject to full and complete cross-examination.

Jurisprudence is completely in favor of the people's position in this regard. People v Perez 216 Cal apps third 1346 in which the defendant requested that he be allowed to display his tattoos without taking an oath or giving testimony, the court denied his request and ruled that the display of the tattoo would be testimonial if it was offered to challenge the testimony of an undercover officer and essentially that is what the injuries that are now proposed to be shown to the jury are offered to demonstrate that he was in fact unable to commit certain acts that he is accused of, is testimonial in nature, let's make no mistake about which is the purpose.

Otherwise, showing the scar or talking or showing the jury what you can and cannot do will give you the ability to limp up to the jury box, approach the jury and try to impress them with your physical presence that there is nothing . appropriate and there is no legal benefit to this in terms of what is appropriate in a court of law if the defendant wanted to testify, that's fine, but to do this and then protect yourself from cross-examination say don't ask me any questions. I want to go up there and show them something. I want you to draw inferences from this.

I want you to take evidence of this without being subject to cross-examination. It's totally inappropriate. People wouldn't have the right to do it because they would have to do it. "Being a basis laid, the people versus Perez make it very clear, they indicated that it would be irrelevant as demonstrative evidence as well, which is what the defense claims they are proposing here, although people question it and it really is kind of a nature thing. testimonial". However, re-proposing, even if demonstrative, the court and Perez ruled that because the defendant had not established a basis for the admission of the evidence, he was properly denied in this case and what the defendant proposed to do requires his presence on the witness stand or some testimony from the witness stand to lay the foundation for your admission simply showing something to the jury without any evidentiary basis gives them nothing reliable or anything of evidentiary value; it is just a blatant attempt to impress the jury with his charisma and star appeal which is not an appropriate vehicle in the opening statement let me also point out that the case of people v.

Wong was conducted in a similar manner people v. Wong the trial court indicated that it was improper for the defendant to exhibit his weapons to the jury without first being sworn in as a witness. in that case 35 Cal apps third eight twelve the defendant in that case wanted to indicate that he was not an addict he had no marks on his arms the trial court refused to allow him to do so unless he underwent cross-examination on appeal the court was confirmed and it was determined that if it was testimonial it was if it was offered as testimonial evidence was properly rejected when the accused refused to take the oath as a witness and himself to cross-examination also ruled that if the offer was demonstrative then the trial court was justified in rejecting it on the basis that it was irrelevant as I indicated to the court yesterday his arm was offered on May 2, 12, 1971 to show the condition of his arm. on June 5, 1970 the condition of the accused today or the existence of that scar without laying a foundation as to what the meaning of that scar is and how it impacted their physical abilities is something that exists without foundation, it has no probative value itself If the defense wants to do it as part of an opening statement, they will also have to offer something that gives it some value in terms of evidentiary value.

What I mean by this is that they can offer a photograph of the defendant's knee, but simply holding up a photograph is not going to get them much, it shouldn't, but the defendants in terms of its evidentiary weight because what does that mean? in terms of his physical capabilities?, he is very or his limitations, make the accused also stand up to count. to the jury that he is not guilty is another blatant attempt to have the defendant address the jury without being questioned is like issuing a blanket denial and then saying that you cannot ask me any questions in a court of law, your honor, when the defendant seeks to testify and issues a blanket denial that opens the door to the broadest possible cross-examination and people are allowed very broad and broad cross-examination.

The defendant seeks to do that in this case and prevent all cross-examination. he seeks to protest his innocence and yet does not allow anyone to ask him questions that are completely inappropriate. I am sure that the court is well aware that if he were in prokhor he could stand up and say whatever he wanted. It is not all. right, what is your page view on People vs Wong 8:35, place your page site for 1348 and continue to 1349, holding 1348 nine gives the fat exposure 1350 gives the decision, okay, any other comes, thanks Stroman, the suggestion that that? a not guilty plea subjects a defendant to cross-examination is simply not the law a not guilty plea is what sets this trial in motion and puts the burden on people to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is truly incredible suggest that somehow jurors will be prejudiced by hearing the plea of ​​not guilty from the defendant's own mouth, in fact, the only person who can plead is the defendant himself and that plea is what sets this procedure in motion and we believe that The suggestion that this is some kind of ploy to capitalize on the defendant's charisma or celebrity status is quite appropriate and opens no door to cross-examination simply to have the jury look at the defendant and hear his not guilty plea from his own lips. accused. quite the opposite, it's just the opposite, we don't want this jury to see the defendant in terms of a celebrity, we want them to see him as a human being and that suggests that in this case it is more necessary to do so because there is such a quality of awe in this whole procedure and we think it would be very salutary to remind everyone, especially the jury, that what is at stake here is simply the freedom of a man, a human being, and here it is, Oh Jay Simpson, in terms of the lack of foundation for the physical capacity of the accused that will be presented in the course of the testimony, obviously, the opening statement does not present all the evidence, it is a preview of what is to come and this is an important part of the evidence. that we would like to tell the jury when they appear during the course of the trial there will be a foundational testimony from mr.

Simpson's doctor as to his physical ability to corroborate the physical demonstration when you say demonstrations now you have me scared, is it an exhibition exhibit or a demonstration presentation, two different things, okay, okay, I have reviewed the cases cited by the people and the only cases. What I could find that were of interest were a New York case and a Mississippi Supreme Court case thatspecifically dealt with a represented client's request to address the jury directly, the motion to allow the defendant to address the jury directly will be denied. surgeries will be allowed all the right advice that we need to solve in addition to the last remaining problems in the tests and we will be prepared. to continue with the opening statements of mr.

Douglas, thank you, your honor, good morning. Yesterday afternoon, your honor, we were attempting a second runner yesterday afternoon, your honor, we were discussing the possibility of making modifications to the sock schedule to which there was an objection, since that the court will see that we have altered the offensive language to reflect the details and circumstances. of a report that was part of an analyzed evidence report that I would like to present to the court and that I already gave to the opposing attorney what it basically says, your honor, is that there is an annotation that refers to different pieces of evidence that there is a notation for navy blue / black socks there is this is a report from Trondheim a reproach oh just answer my question it is June 29 before yes it is and it talks about there being a quote dress socks semicolon let's look stop none obvious stop close and we would Your Honor, this is indeed a fair reflection of what we believe the evidence is going to show.

We will hold that that graphic is not unduly prejudicial and we hold that the court should overrule the objections and allow admission of that shot of that shark, who is it that is offering that report? This is what your Honor is referring to, this document was apparently prepared for the split hearing for Splitter and Yamauchi Kessler and Mathison each testified about the process by which they pulled out different pieces of evidence and examined them and this was one document. that was prepared specifically for that accession, okay, it doesn't answer my question who prepared the report who prepared that report Michele Kessler Greg Matheson and Colleen Yamaguchi is that the index that was prepared the index of evidence is a summary of the evidence analyzed by amp by analysis done that's the title okay that's exhibit two in the split hearing your honor's remaining objection would be in response to concerns about the videotapes and the scenes that were reflected of different officers walking through the crime scene at various times now we have obtained the remaining recordings and your honor there was an error, it means that yesterday the scenes that were shown on the tape that was given to the people are not things that were taken from CNN but are a collection of different shots that they were received. from different local news outlets, so in order for us to present these different fragments at trial, we can simply lay the groundwork by subpoenaing and bringing to testify the operators of I believe it is the local channels 5 7 11 and 13 from whom these fragments in particular they were cold, that tape was now given to the court and that tape was also given to the people.

Now we have the San Francisco tape that had two other signals that were not shown in the first appointment, according to what Mr. . Hodgman, that the people would continue to maintain their objection, so what I proposed, your honor, is that the court allow the showing of the scenes that were shown yesterday. They are scenes, your honor, that are very capable of being authenticated in many ways. It is self-authenticating in They are authenticated in many ways because there will be an evidence or a police record where each individual who arrives on the scene first registers with one of the police officers that are there, that record will be an item of evidence and it is possible by showing the scenes and have those depicted there testify to clearly establish when the various scenes were taken and what kind of things were going on it is true, your honor, that it is the people's crime scene.

It is true, your honor, that they themselves do not have a videotape of the crime scene, there are certain discrete acts that are happening, for example, Detective Lang measuring a certain location, for example, you see criminalist Fung placing evidence tags particulars you will see, although you will see the detectives walking between Detective Van Adder and Rogers. walking and clearly the sheet is there because the body has been removed but the sheet remains and shows his honor the type of meaning that we are going to represent with words; helps provide visual context to the words that mr.

Cochran is going to speak, he is going to discuss how the evidence will show that there was contamination of the crime scene. We would then hope to show images that demonstrate that they reflect crime scene contamination. They are going to offer evidence. I suppose your honor. how the crime scene was not contaminated perhaps show that by the time these scenes were shown all evidence had been collected. perhaps they show or offer evidence that when these scenes were shown it was the next day or the third day later. That is the risk we are going to take with the statements we are going to make in our opening statement, but whether or not there are visual reflections in certain words, mr.

I think Cochran will be able to discuss and speak quite appropriately about how the crime scene was contaminated and how we maintain that these scenes are simply a small reflection of the only live record that is available that shows the conduct of Detectives Vannatter and other detectives in both places. the Rockingham and Bundy crime scenes on June 13, your honor, I think that is the end of my objections to the graphics that people are going to offer and my explanation to the elements that were left yesterday. Thanks, Clark, I'm sorry, excuse me. Wait a second, okay, Miss Clark, yes, the court had finalized its ruling regarding the tape yesterday, sir.

Cochran made a motion that when a ruling is made we do not reaffirm it and we all agreed that what I said yesterday is that if the trial if the defense makes the videotape available to you and after reviewing the tape you still maintain the I mean, who knows after watching it, you may have changed your mind now that you've had the opportunity that's brought you here. What is your position? We haven't had a chance to see it. They gave it to us this morning when we entered the courthouse. How long do these video tapes last, mr.

Douglas, the first tape was played, I think yesterday in its entirety, the second tape, which is five or ten minutes worth, contains the three clips that we want to use when opening, today all five, the first five or ten minutes, yes, also We showed yesterday that the same problem exists now as before. We have no basis in terms of time and time is very important. The blood stains were collected at a certain point and that is not established with the tape. Second, there is a counter at the bottom. that tape is very misleading because it looks like it's actually all these different pieces of tape where one continuous take is done, which is not the case as the attorney even admits that considerable editing was done on that tape and the People maintain their objection, right?

I think we should at least watch the first five or ten minutes to see if he still does it. Certainly, your honor, I will be happy to let me move on to the other exposition regarding the sock timeline. . Douglas' representation before this court is very misleading and I confronted him this morning and explained that this is not a business record. I should point out to the court first of all that it was a chart prepared specifically for the Griffin hearing, and the blood split hearing was actually at my request because I wanted to see exactly what they plan to do with all the pieces of evidence and what seemed to be sufficient for one division what was not capable of PCR what appeared to be capable of RFLP in the box marked comments shows blood search because that is what they were planning to do, it had not been done yet.

These are navy blue to black socks, which if you look at them with the naked eye you won't be able to tell. everything was scheduled for a blood test and it was noted that nothing was obvious because you are not going to see blood in a pair of black socks; At best you might see something wet but after a period of time and it dries you won't even see it so I was scheduled for a blood test and what mr. Douglass in this painting is very misleading because it indicates that they are going, they have already looked for blood and that none is obvious.

This is exactly the problem, is that the jury is out and if mr. Douglass had spoken with mr. Matheson would tell you to put there as many of the other items listed in this comments column as a forward-looking plan that you can see in this list, it says just above item number twelve it shows possible RFLP and in previous items it shows that RFLP consume only PCR, it is very obvious what this is, they are talking about what can be done or what they plan to do, it is not that it has been done, it had not been done, so what the lawyer has put there is completely misleading, it is the opposite of what happened, okay, let's take a look at the videotape and see what's there, the court there was a graphic that we hadn't seen yet that we only saw a Xerox copy of.

I wanted to address the court later and I think I can do it better if I have the chart in front of the court, which was the chart titled deceptions, distortions, you said you didn't have. I had lost my copy at the time, Your Honor, there is text in it that I wanted to object to, please do nothing. Tired graphic but with some language in it. I need to confirm that that's in it, if it's not there there won't be any, but that's the problem with not having everything in court on Friday, since they didn't tell me no in court.

I didn't have it in front of you when you asked me to rule on it. I apologize to the court. I thought that if. I mean, I can't keep doing these things over and over again. I'm just asking permission to see the graph. as it currently exists, I have not seen the final printout, all we saw was a rendering on an 8 by 10 sheet of paper. I would like to see what the final graph says, mr. Douglas, do we have that chart available? You know the chart is being assembled right now and will be picked up this morning, but it simply reflects this particular chart.

Does the court have a copy of this? Could you please hand it over to Ms. Robertson, I mean, I want to address the court on certain aspects of this chart. Well, that would be great. Well, I can't, I can't see the full graph, you can't either, okay, we'll focus on that. little with respect to the first entry marks fuhrman and the gloves indicating plural at no time marked fuhrman, so by testifying that the painting is misleading with respect to that language, people object to the use of the plural that never occurred in second place. Vannatter guarantees that the search warrant and the circumstances of the search are irrelevant to the trial before the Court of Justice, in fact, it is a legal question for the court to decide and it is inappropriate to raise an opening statement, much less at trial.

I would also mention to the court that I thought the court ruled that mark Fuhrman could not be mentioned an opening statement to correct people's objection on that basis also Philips statement to the coroner we are not following procedure but we are asking a favor a statement taken for context that is hearsay from a transcript issued by the coroner, not a statement made, nor a report made by Ron Phillips, and it is misleading and confusing on that basis, okay, okay, ma'am. Clarke, before it gets too much for the council, this is not an argument, this is not an opening statement, good morning, your honor, your honor on this matter, yesterday I understood that people had the opportunity to see everything that we did. show them this and Miss Clark indicates that she had no objection, we don't want to argue, this has already happened, we thought out of caution in court locations because we anticipated that she might change her mind, we have another graph that I think, hopefully, the court will find fewer arguments.

I'd like the court to take a look at it. I think this is basically a summary of the conduct and I wanted one of the court's inquiries regarding mr. Furman Court didn't say we couldn't talk about Mark Fuhrman. I understand and stand firm. What you indicated was that regarding the Kathleen Bell incident, I think you said but you never said that we couldn't talk about Mark Fuhrman. It's imaginary. That's great, okay? I want to make sure it was clear. Can I show this to mr. Hodgman and then hand over your honorary copy, let's say it's a change in this dock, you need to change this dock, put it there, put it in relation to these elements that occurred, remember that as part of the exhibits we will have a video. clip of Detective Fuhrman prior to Ms.

Clark's objection the use of the words gloves I will stipulate hit make a glove but we are still going to play that clip regarding Detective Phillips we actually have a transcript we pass this on yes sir that is coming I don't want take nothing out of context people will be able to see exactly the transcripts nothing is out of context with respect to Detective Van Atta where the statement is made that Simpson had left an unexpected flight to Chicago what are we talking about The issue is not re-litigatedthat the court places at the entrance, but to indicate that in the first first contact with the criminal justice system at 10:45 from 612 a lie was told in that order under oath they did not tell the truth and We have that and when you saw yesterday Kato Kaelin, ER's statement regarding ensuring the documentation and preservation of the crime scene, everyone was very aware that the Missoula trainee was his third crime scene and he was basically the officer in charge there regarding the Bronco , we have litigated, this lawyer has been known for some time, we did it and they began their innocuous language, they did not take that special care in the presentation of evidence, we showed all this yesterday, your honor, they reviewed it, they had no objections to the evidence of DNA we made.

I have constantly said that they can talk all they want about DNA, but all the DNA evidence went through the LAPD before it went to any other lab and we believe that it is our right to talk about that we have a graph that we have already passed of OJ's blood vial and this mysterious blood vial and it's where Sokka went instead of being booked properly and then finally the question of the socks whether or not there was anything obvious about the socks. I disagree with my opponent in learning that blood is red. I'll be dark red, it's not black like the socks and you could.

I suggest watching it. I think the question is that the prosecution believes that they have a theory and if we do not agree with that theory they think that they are always right that is what a trial is about that is why we listen to the judges they are not always right that is why sometimes they lose cases and that's why they're not always right the jury will make that determination and this idea of ​​protecting this jury, that's what you're going to do, no, you told us yesterday about doing our job and that's when the system works best.

Your Honor, if not, do your job. do our job they do their job we don't waste any time doing the job for the jury they will do their job and you will do your job and I promise you we will do our job judge and that's what you asked us to do "That's all we "We're trying to do here. This is a man we've maintained from the beginning is wrongfully accused and we're in the fight of their lives and that's why this is not a sunny, easy game, so we." We are very serious about this, we don't argue and we just want to explain it and we looked at this last night even though she passed it, we think we explained it in detail and I think it addresses all the concerns, your honor. and I think certainly in an opening statement you can exclude what our theory of the case is.

I'm all for it, so what we're doing now is a lot more than usual. Judge that you are having a full preview of the things we expect. use okay let's see the videotape too thank you let me see everything I have to consider and then okay I would like to see the videotape thank you does this contain anything? No, your honor, this practically starts where the other one. They left it yesterday the bodies have been removed but the coroner is still there and mr. Fung is leaving the tags on him Mrs. Robertson says we want to show an opening, there's a little more after this, but it's all good, Miss Clark.

I'll hear her objection first of all with respect to the videotape, your honor, yes again, the same fundamental issues we have are with respect to time. We don't have authentication in terms of timing and that's critical in terms of evidence collection. The inference that the defense will seek to draw is that all of the evidence collected by the LAPD was tainted in some way by the method of actions. shown on the tape, if the evidence had already been collected at the time these people are shown in the positions shown on the video, then in reality there is no impact and the inference sought to be drawn is directly misleading to the jury and that's one thing neither side can make an opening statement, people are not trying to tell the defense how to treat their case, people are asking this court just to make sure the jury don't fool yourself so you can get the truth so you understand what the evidence really is it's not misrepresentation or distortion or half truths or statements taken out of context but the truth and the problem with a video like this is that we have no way of knowing when he was shot and the inference that the defense tries to draw from it may be completely false, in which case the jury begins the case with a completely wrong idea about the conditions under which the evidence was collected and that is a very damaging thing and it is That's why the defense of course seeks to do it.

I understand it, but it's not appropriate. The jury deserves to know the truth and understand what the evidence really is. Okay. Do you want to address the other topics? The sock chart and the conduct chart. Yes, the conduct. sir I think the trial saw, I have your honor, I have addressed that dad who is again totally misleading regarding the blood test regarding the chart now the new one is even worse than the other first of all he repeats how misleading and completely false . The inference drawn about the blood test that they intend to argue by derogating from reality and derogating from the truth, the truth is that it was scheduled for a blood test, what they intend to infer from this is that it was already performed and none of it was obvious and that is exactly one hundred and eighty degrees opposite to the truth, so it is a complete falsehood regarding Mark Fuhrman and the gloves again, it is false, they claim that they put the plural that was never said by Mark Fuhrman, they take their statement from In this context there is a extensive conversation between him and his lawyer in which he refers to a glove he saw on Ron Goldman's feet and says that repeatedly and still taking a statement out of context they seek to draw inferences from it.

It's argumentative, it's not. an initial statement and it is misleading and unfair because it is taken out of context, the same would apply to Ron Phillips before the coroner, of course these are taken out of context, how did the council argue otherwise when you have an extensive transcript of statements that have information explanatory both before and after taking, you have a and you have seen that you get the beat and that is what the lawyer has done, taking everything out of its proper context and pasted it on a graph and again it is argumentative regarding the order of van adder that statement is irrelevant we are talking about some language in a search warrant that is appropriate for the court to decide that is not important for a jury to appear that is not appropriate for a jury to appear has to be the judge of fact to determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, not whether the search was adequate or inadequate, that is a legal argument that goes to the court, not the jury, that statement is inappropriate and is argumentative also regarding the preservation of the evidence of the crime scene, the defense visit, if so. say the trainee is Andrea Missoula Andrea Missoula was not in charge she was a trainee who was being supervised by the Dennis fund so this is false this is a false statement if they claim she was in charge of the crime scene , that is not true and misleading I thought the court's ruling regarding Mark Fuhrman was that neither party could mention him, that was just Kathleen Val, Kathleen's bill impeachment issue regarding we had a long time with respect to the elements, we did not give it special care, that is also misleading. putting quotes as if it came from a manual of some kind that we know is not true and it is argumentative, yes it is true, all the evidence went through the LAPD, there is no objection to that regarding all the blood that was not accounted for, that It is argumentative, we have not seen any evidence. of that, if the attorney believes that they can lay a foundation during the course of this trial, that is certainly appropriate for argument, but it is not appropriate for the opening statement and, again, it is argumentative.

I'm just too much, it's the court, okay, you're done with your comments, yeah. your honor and thank you mr. Captain Carvin, I thank your honor for being patient, your honor at all times. Your honor in this regard, first of all, let me point out again that this is an opening statement, your honor, where do you have your theories? And you know we haven't said they should. We don't have their theories, we think we have facts, but certainly, depending on that, we have certain interpretations of what we believe to be the evidence from the court and, so right, we are allowed to talk about those things.

If you look at this graph, sometimes you know the people. objectively you should have nothing to say and in this case, your honor, the issue is considered with respect to the use of the word gloves. I don't want to mislead anyone, the S will be removed regarding Detective Phillips. Your honor, we have the full transcript. that we are going to have available in court is where we can use that respect to Detective Vannatter, we are really not getting anything like I said, it is about credibility and regarding and this is where the lawyer who supposedly knows your case should review his own documents Me I would like the court to see this regarding Officer Missoula.

We have a 9400 174 31 forum that says, "Oh, I see a commanding officer named, Missoula assistant named deceased, we didn't make this stuff up. I'll be glad to have it." a look at that is her way now we don't invent these things and regarding the special attention field, she says at least in quotes that it is from the LAPD forum, your honor, remember yesterday when we showed the forum, we took it out the way we they didn't check the appropriate box when the Bronco was basically unattended for all those months, now he was able to see the DNA test and go through the LAPD.

Yes, your honor regarding the blood vial gunner again, that is our belief based on all the documents that have been provided to us at Discovery and you know, if it turns out to be incorrect, we will review it, so we will say that this is based on the documents that we have received, it is not difficult, you handle it, that is our position, judge. and she can't tell us what our position is or what it should be, she should understand that from the beginning and then with respect to socks we will accept whatever language your honor says about that, but again, if you look at this particular formula this form is titled OJ Simpson summary of the evidence analyzed by analysis carried out we are using your own forms your own form genre by analysis carried out and it says below that obvious and that's all we've said, we take your own form so you know there was a recent movie, your Your Honor, where there was a line that I think was very appropriate in this case.

I think it was some good men that we kept hearing about the truth. I don't think they can handle the truth, that's what Jack Nicholson said but you don't want to hear the truth and I think that's very appropriate in this situation, that's exactly what's happening here, well there's another thing I'd like to say. , something worthwhile, sometimes, his honor gives to the bad, even the bad. tell the truth of the matter, your honor, we certainly were not the bad guys in this case, your honor, your honor, regarding another thing you asked us to do at the end of the day and I believe this is on page 25. of volume 2 of my instruction in volume 11 of the journalist's transcript of the proceedings of Thursday, July 7, 1994.

I asked the court for permission to read this. I'm Mr. Shapiro question how much blood you took from mr. Simpson roughly answers the eight CC question when you roughly say that you didn't measure the amount and you said, well, it could have been seven point nine. I could have been eight point one. I just looked at the syringe and looked at about eight CCs. You would ask us. to find that for you and I'll give us the secretary, but all we ask of his honor is that we stop haggling and start with the opening statements and we've seen everything beforehand and I think it's time to figure it out. okay, thanks, okay, the objection to the use of videotape stands.

The argument has been that the concession has been that these are fragments and that the defense is willing to take the risk. An argument that they cannot lay a precise foundation. The problem is that that carries the risk of misleading the jury and I'm not willing to take that risk in the course of an opening statement to sustain the objection regarding the sock chart, the language that appears in the sock chart. comes from a summary of reports and evidence not the report itself objection holds as to language blood blood test none obvious in all other respects socks timeline graph can be used as to graph of conduct the objection is sustained these quotes some of These quotes are taken out of context and, as a result, there is a danger that this will lead the jury to sustain the objection.

Okay, lawyer. I don't think I spoke yesterday about Mrs. Robertson reminded me that I did not comment on the accused's photograph and, in the case of the formally dressed ladies, I know that I did not mark it by listening to the lady. Robertson indicated that I did not speak out, so the objection to that is overruled by the rest of the record, complete, well, the lawyer who is in charge of that, let menotify the attorney tomorrow, one of our sequestered jurors has a doctor's appointment and we will adjourn at 3:30 tomorrow 3:30 to accommodate that and I would also like to speak to the attorney at some point about his proposal for a court hearing. scene when you get the chance, okay, anything else before inviting the jurors to join.

We and the new chart will be next so people can put a copy of that for the records service, okay sir. Hodgman, thank you and good morning, your honor, your honor, first of all, there is an issue that we will have to address in the sidebar. I think the court can handle it quickly, but it's a data point. I think the entire Council should know this before proceeding with the opening. statement so, before we do that, your honor, before we do that, I'm sorry, it was yesterday, we raised a discovery concern with respect to the defense this morning.

I have been provided with another defense witness statement, a memo from a mr. William Pavlik dated November 2, 1994 Yesterday I asked the court that the court ordered the defense to turn over all discovery that is in process, so to speak, because we don't want to be surprised anymore now that I have asked mr. Douglas this morning is this, sir, any other witness statement they have regardless of his age and I think his response was that he could, he couldn't be definitive about it. that's right sir. Douglas, okay, I'll let you speak for yourself, but what I would like the court to do is remind the defense of their obligation to provide us with witness statements on time.

We are asking for everything to be discussed as I did yesterday and I would like that order to be clear to the defense, yesterday a specific reference was made to an interview of Scott Matsuda whose name was added to the witness list and I specifically asked my investigator that particular report and I asked you to Check to make sure that none of the names that were on it there is any report that has not been delivered that is the report that was given to me that was the report that I gave and again I will try to review my files to Check the other attorney's files and make sure there are no other outstanding reports that have not been delivered and, if I find it, I will give mr.

Hodgman, very good, I liked his report. I would like you to appear in court tomorrow morning, mr. Douglas as to that part of the search, okay, sir. Husband, can we come closer now? Thank you. We will be on recess until 10:30 and will begin opening statements at 10:30. Okay, Deputy Jax, we need to get the Simpson matter back on the record. Simpson is again present in court with his attorney, Mr. Shapiro Sr. Allman Sr. Cochran Mr. Douglas Mr. Town of Bailey represented by Miss Clark mr. Darden and mr. Hodgman, the jury is not present, deputy magneri. Oh, can we invite the jury?

Please, okay, attorney in the hearing, please take a seat. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to begin with the opening statements made by the attorneys in the case, as we remind you. I inform you of my instructions yesterday that any statements made to you by counsel during the course of your opening statements are not evidence and you should not consider them as such. These opening statements are typically made by attorneys to give you sort of an overview of the evidence they intend to present is to give you a roadmap, so to speak, on how to evaluate the evidence.

This case, as you know, will be relatively long and, by necessity, some of this evidence will be presented to you out of chronological order. or logical order, so they will have to explain the case they intend to present. Are both sides prepared to move forward? Mr. Calculon Clark, okay, do people want to make an opening statement? Well, you may continue, Mr. Darden, thank you Your Honor, Judge Ito mr. Cochran Mr. Shapiro and Dean Holman to my colleague sitting here today in front of you and the real interested parties in this case the Brown family, the Goldman family and the Simpson family and to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good morning.

I think it's fair to say that today I have the hardest job in town, except for the job you have. Your job may be a little more difficult, but your job and, like mine, both have a central focus, a single goal, and that goal is justice, obviously that will be the case. A long trial and I want you to know how much we appreciate you being on the panel. We appreciate the personal sacrifices you are making by being kidnapped. We understand that it can be difficult and I would like to thank you in advance for keeping your promises. you made us when you were selected for the jury initially promised to be fair promised to have an open mind and promised to listen, see and carefully consider all the evidence in the case and promised to find this case to reach a verdict in this case solely on the basis of the evidence and the law that Judge Ito gave you and you promised to do it based on the law, based on the facts, any evidence and nothing more, you promised us that you had no hidden agenda that you just wanted justice to be done and you promised us that she would do everything under the law to see justice done, so I thank her for that and I thank her in advance for the verdict she will receive at some point. perform in this case and we are here today obviously to solve a problem to solve a question a question that has been on the minds of people across the country these last seven months certainly has been on the minds and my people in Richmond California and friends in Fayetteville Georgia and all over the country and everyone wants to know and everyone I know often asked me questions: Did OJ Simpson really kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

Well, finally, ladies and gentlemen, I am here before you this morning to answer that question and you will answer that question from the witness stand and from the evidence that you will see in this case and from the evidence and when you see the evidence and when listen to the witnesses and when you put it all together and consider the whole. of circumstances in this case the answer will also be clear to you the answer to the question is yes the evidence will show that the answer to the question is yes Oh Jake Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman and I'm sure you I wonder why The trial continues like this and I'm sure you're wondering why right now, if the judge gave you instructions, the opening statements are not evidence.

Opening statements are given by lawyers and in an opening statement we inform the jury what we think. the evidence will prove it in this case we believe the evidence of the show but we are lawyers we are not witnesses we are not under oath nothing we say is evidence the things we tell you today are not the things you should carry out in the jury room and deliberations we must bring to the jury room and its deliberations the evidence of the case the testimony from the witness stand the evidence admitted at trial the instructions given by the court and when you look at all of that when you go back and reflect on the testimony and the evidence and everything you heard and saw in this case you will know why he killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman and when he gives you the answer if he had it and you stop considering it you think why would he do it?

Because I would do? It's not OJ Simpson, it's not the OJ Simpson we think we know, it's not the OJ Simpson we've seen over the years, but that raises another question and that question is: did you know OJ Simpson? We have seen it. We saw him playing football for USC when he just arrived at UCLA and playing in the Rose Bowl we saw him win the Heisman Trophy. He may be the best running back in NFL history. We watched him drop off turnstiles and chairs and drive airplanes and Hertz commercials. and we saw him with a 50-inch afro and a thirty-three-and-a-half-inch Naked Gun and we've seen him over and over and come to think we know that what we've been seeing, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of the public. public person the athlete's faith the face of the application door is not the one after who is being judged here today ladies and gentlemen it is not that public face it is his other face like many men in public like many public men have a public image a public person a public side a public life and they also have a private side a private life a private face and that is the face that we will expose to you in this trial, the other side of OJ Simpson, besides the fact that you have never met him before.

I wish to express myself in this trial and to show you in this trial that other face, the face that I wore behind the locks, the doors and the walls of Rockingham, that other face that Nicole Brown encountered almost every day of her adult life with the that she found. during the last moments of his adult life, the same face that Ronald Goldman encountered during the last moments of his life, when we look and look behind that public face, the public face of the man who sits here in court today, you will see a different face. but the face you will see and the man you will see will be the face of a bully, a wife beater, an abuser, a controller, you will see Ron's face of Ron and Nicole's killer to understand what happened in Bundy, we must examine his defendant's relationship with Nicole because when we do that we can discern from that we can see a motive, we can see his motive for killing his ex-wife and I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that as the trial progresses and you hear the evidence.

In this case, that reason will be clear. He killed Nicole for one reason only, not because he hated her. He didn't hate Nicole. He didn't kill her because he no longer loved her because of her mother. He killed her because of jealousy. He killed her because of jealousy. he couldn't have her and if he couldn't have her he didn't want anyone else he killed her to control his control as a continuous theme while the continuous is the central focus. of their entire relationship killing the coldest defend and assume full control over the act of control killing her no one else could pass no one but him and he killed Ron Goldman and he killed Ron Goldman for another reason he killed Ron Goldman because he entered the way in that he killed Nicole because he had a problem with it, like men and women sometimes have in relationships, they have a problem and this problem from the defendants to the man in the courtroom I think he expressed his problem and he said then and he said on other occasions and Cito, he said while standing next to the caster while standing over Kota's body, my problem, but it wasn't really love, ladies and gentlemen, and this will be reflected in the evidence and the evidence will establish that it was not really love that was this.

The half sued and Nicole Brown wasn't love, it was obsession. He became obsessed with her and his obsession was so great that he developed the need to control her and his need to control her he realized that he couldn't keep her and he killed him because letting her go would mean losing control of her letting her go to Ron Goldman or someone else would mean lose control he couldn't have her and no one else could have her now, the evidence in this case will establish that the man in the courtroom, this defendant is an extremely controlling and possessive man and, as I said before, control and Possessiveness was a dominant theme throughout their relationship and he controlled her in various ways.

I am the accused in Nicole, the first time I met her, she was barely 18 years old. he was almost 30 years old she shared an apartment he owned a man she waited tables in a restaurant he was a millionaire no one had ever heard of him on the cold front but he was one of the most recognized men in the United States but after meeting her, little He slowly started to control her she shared an apartment with a friend he got her own apartment he bought her things he gave her things when she was 19 she drove a Porsche she got it because he started to have control over her and throughout the year during their relationship he maintained that control over her that financial control the evidence will show that Nicole never really had a job she never really worked she never really operated a business she never really had any income of her own throughout her adult life this man she got she got from the defendant the people They can sometimes be bald and young people can sometimes be easily fooled.

Nicole is a very young woman, if she is a woman, when she met this defendant, the man sitting in the courtroom, and as the years passed , he gained more control. the more abusive he became as you listen to the evidence in this case, you will hear evidence about domestic abuse and domestic violence, bullying, physical abuse, wife beating, public humiliation as you listen to the trial and as you listen to this evidence to see this evidence, Keep in mind that all these different types of abuse, we are all different methods of controlling her, let me continue with the evidence that will show in this case that he mentally abused her, stripped her of her self-esteem.

The defendant dictated Nicole's way of dressing, dictated the way she did her hair, and when he didn't like her appearance, he would criticize her and humiliate her to the point that she would cry if he didn't like her shoes and would go out. her. and bought shoes this is what I want you to earn where this looked like this she was not a barbie doll ladies and gentlemen the evidence will show that he was so controlling that he tried to define his ideatried to define who she was when she was pregnant with him and got fat, the evidence will show that this defendant was so abusive that he called her fat, he called her a pig and he did it in the presence of her family and in the presence of his friends and he really dependent on you.

We are going to show and this trial and by doing these things and by throwing these insults he stripped her of her self-esteem and when you controlled someone financially you have no identity, you have them, you control them, the evidence will show that this defendant this man in the courtroom court was a very controlling and possessive man and that is a dominant theme throughout their relationship was his control over Nicole Brown, but he did more than simply degrade her in the presence of others, he sometimes attempted to isolate her. of some people he got jealous and he got so jealous that it got to the point where she wouldn't do it and as time went on and as he got jealous and more and more jealous, he even insisted that she not be around certain men , he began to isolate his ladies and gentlemen, when his friends approached, his friends approached and when he felt that she spent too much time with those girlfriends, he would talk to the girlfriends, he would let her know that he didn't like them hanging around, dissuaded one of her friends. from hanging around, he tried to isolate her from other people and when you isolate someone and when you take away someone's self-esteem and when you establish her identity, you are yours, you can control it and the evidence showed in this case. that this man is an extremely possessive and controlling individual and that he is an extremely obsessive individual when he came to Nicole and his obsession manifested itself by the things he did to control her but degrade her and control the purse strings and isolate her by defining who she would see and who she would not see would see and who would be her friends and who would not be was not all this defendant did to control this woman there are more powerful forms of control there is force there is violence there is fear her intimidation and you will hear testimonies, see evidence that in her quest to control Nicole, this defendant used all of these things, he used fear, he used intimidation and he used violence and instilled such fear in her.

Ladies and gentlemen, you walk into a room and Nicole would be there. and a moment before he walked in, she would be the most charming person ever, she is relaxed, but when he walked in, her demeanor completely changed as time passed, the mere presence of her became intimidating to her . I mentioned before that they met when she was around 18 years old. She was in 1977 and they dated for eight years and finally got married in 1985 and the marriage was a stormy marriage and it was a marriage marked by acts of violence and that violence would always be followed by an apology, people would apologize and they would give him fires. jeweler's.

Flores promised to keep control of himself and promised not to do it again and then those acts of violence will be followed by additional acts of violence and it became a cycle violence apologizes a period of tranquility and calm that violence and excuses violence calm and calm excuse me, calm call, a cycle of violence characterized your relationship, characterizes your marriage, a domestic violence, ladies and gentlemen, that is a difficult topic because domestic violence is something that happens behind doors and walls, it happens in the bedroom and within the home and in some places. Where public domestic violence is a private matter usually while it's happening, so that makes it difficult, but the violence occurred and it makes it difficult to get evidence and get proof that the relationship is a violent relationship, but we have that proof. we have evidence, we have evidence, you will hear testimony of the relationship of the violent marriage that this defendant had with Nicole Brown in 1985, police responded to the defendants' home in Rockingham in response to a call and when they arrived, they were greeted by Nicole , she was upset. the face was swollen she approached the spirits she is old she told these people she said we had a fight after the fight i was trying to leave and when i tried to leave the defendant grabbed a baseball bat and he grabbed that baseball bat and The windshield was broken for my car and as they were looking around, the law enforcement officers looked to the right and saw a white Mercedes-Benz SL 450 and the windshield was shattered and right at the pendant he left the house and offered an explanation, well, the police. he didn't arrest them and that's not an act of physical violence towards Nicole, is it or maybe it's Nicole Brown?

Was she there she? The witness violently disappeared in his vehicle and if you married someone and you love someone and you get into a fight with them and they take a baseball bat and do something like that to one of your most prized possessions the evidence will show that this It was a message, it was an indication, there was a warning about what happened next it was a warning that what happened to his Mercedes-Benz could also happen to you and it happened to Nicole, not with the baseball bat, but with This is how Mercedes was destroyed and dented, you will hear evidence, you will hear testimonies.

You will see witnesses, witnesses in this case about an incident that occurred on January 1, 1989. It was almost four in the morning on January 1 when the 911 operator received a phone call from Rockingham and that operator will be here to testify. in court and that operator will be here to authenticate, the operator appears and when the tape plays listen very carefully because if you listen closely in the background you will hear a woman screaming and you will hear something else, you will hear the sound of this defendant. this man hitting this woman you will hear the sound of his hand hitting your face you were here the sound this defendant hitting his wife but the police arrived, they arrived in Rockingham and responded to that phone call and the cold never got to call 91 1 1 operator to come help me or something, all she did was scream and the operator could hear her scream, they operated to hear her being hit and she advised LAPD units to respond to 316 North Rockingham, we can hear the sound of a woman. are being hit right now and the officers arrived at Rockingham a short time later and when they did they took the puzzle to the security gate and as they did so they saw someone running out of the bushes running out of the darkness in their direction and this person they saw with Nicole and Nicole ran out of the dark wearing nothing but sweatpants and a bra running towards the offices and she was covered in mud and she was dirty and she was dirty and she ran towards the officers and as she ran she told them she ran towards the officers she she was screaming and yelling he's going to kill me he's going to kill me and the officers stood there at four in the morning she's outside in her bra sweatpants they're covered in mud she just got a call there's a woman in Rockingham she's getting beat up now she runs out of the darkness and the mud and the bushes and presses the security gate button and runs through the gate while collapsing in the officer's arms all the while screaming. he's going to kill me, he's going to kill me and the officer said who, who's going to kill you and she said old Jay is going to kill me and the officers watched the group I live with lead one of the officers, the officer up there, he looked at his neck and what he saw startled him on his neck he could see a handprint around his neck but it was then that the accused came out of the house wearing nothing but his dressing gown. bathroom and did not address his wife at that time and did not ask the police how she was doing or if she was okay what the evidence will show of what you will hear in this case is that he degraded and humiliated her even more, he yelled at the officers In the presence of Nicole, his wife, I already have two women in my bed.

This was his wife. This is what he said to these officers. They were strangers together. This is what he yelled at the police. The officers were on one side of the wall door and The accused at that time was on the other side, the officer said, Mr. Simpson, we're going to have to arrest him. It seems that his wife has been beaten, so please return to the house, put on some clothes and come with us. We'll take him to the station. Well, the evidence showed that that didn't sit well with him and he responded that the police had been here eight times before and now they're going to arrest me for this eight times that's what the defendant said the police had been there eight times before and like He said I'm going to be arrested for this.

I told the officers this is a family matter. That's what the evidence would show me. I defend. The officers were told. This is a family man. And he, for his information, wants to make a big deal out of this? we can handle it it was shown that the officers did not like the way he had handled things up to that point and insisted that he get dressed and told him that he was under arrest and that they were going to take him to the police station well this was OJ Simpson and he got dressed but didn't go to the police station, he got into his Bentley and sped away and they chased him, they didn't catch him and he ran away the next day. to the Rose Bowl but despite this despite what happened on January 1, 189 despite the Mercedes-Benz incident in 1985 she stayed, she stayed with them and I am not suggesting and the evidence will not suggest that every day of their merit of their relationship filled with violence that is not what we are suggesting here but we are suggesting and the evidence will show that there was a cycle of violence the cycle of violence and the dominant theme and that relationship and in that cycle and the ultimate goal always it was controlled control long after the incident 89 after that night the relationship changed a little she was worried and the accused was worried the accused is a public man and he was worried about his public image and in the public domain and in the public media there Back in 1989 he was being interviewed by Roy Firestone Firestone on ESPN and during that interview Mr.

Firestone asked the defendant about that incident on the morning of January 1 to defend him, he left it and here you see that interview and in that interview the defendant said that it was some kind of mutual fight she was wrong he was wrong today no big deal and that's what he told the press and the public, downplay things, but you will hear testimony from investigators employed in the district attorney's office and they will tell you about a day just a few months ago when they punched a hole in a box of security Nicolle and will inform you about the day they recovered photographs taken of Nicole's injuries in 1989 and will also inform you about the recovery of some letters that the defendant wrote to Nicole after the 1989 The account that the defendant gave her to the press, the media and the public was not the same account that he gave to Nicole in those letters during that apology.

He faced the apology. He faced the regret phase. The phase he was going through and the letter he wrote to Nicole apologizing for hurting her. She said the same thing you've been saying all along and that is I'll do better, we can get through this and that happens in bad relationships and then in abusive relationships, right? Things get bad, bad things happen, it's always someone's fault. blame, but no one wants to take the blame and in this situation and the evidence will show that what the defendant did was he made these promises, he kind of stole the back of, you know, the abyssal Asian ship.

I'll do better, it was a gift. Sorry to get into that again and if you are the other person in the closed position like her and this will be reflected in the evidence, she wanted to believe, she wanted to believe that their marriage could survive, she wanted to have hope and he gave her hope for a time because this is a cycle and that's why he beat him up on January 1, he admitted to him privately in his letters that he was responsible and he apologized and he gave him things and he tried to make everything better and he gave him hope and he He tied her up again and she stayed because she had hope and because she wanted to believe that January 1, 1989 would be the last time he would abuse her.

There is a clarity of mind in listening to the evidence in this case. something very sad becomes very evident they met when she was 18 and he was almost 30 and in 1992 they divorced she was only 33 and she died when she was almost 35 throughout his adult life Rob most of his adult life his concept of marriage in a relationship was defined by this defendant that it was adult love his notion of adult love for 15 years was what this defendant gave him and he abused it throughout that relationship well, like I said before, you know, sometimes you They tie people up to the The coal guy tied up by the accused while she stayed and she stayed and people stay in those situations, those abusive relationships for years and years until one or two things happen, one that they just can't endure more or two until they simply cannot bear it.

They no longer know and they wake up to reality and finally in 1992 Nicole woke up to the reality of her situation and in January 1992 she moved out of Rockingham, she left the defendant and filed for divorce. Well, this didn't sit well with the defendant, he didn't like the fact that Nicole was leaving his house and going somewhere else to live in her own house away from him, there's that issue of control, does it? How could he control her? She wasn't there with all of them and he didn't take it well and he lost 20 to 25 pounds like that and almost every day she called his sisters Dominika Tanya and Denise and called him sweet and his father called himSometimes she cried on the phone I called him and even yes and he complained to him and you know he told her how much he loved her and that I wanted him to come back.

He had used them. She tried and Roper backed away. Well, she couldn't let him go, not entirely. I mean, how could she? He's been under her control for 15 or 16 years, so she didn't go too far, she rented a house in Brentwood in Gretna Green, they saw each other, they had children together, lovely children, you'd probably see a picture of one very soon, but he I could not stand it. the loss of Nicole he couldn't deal with not having her there he couldn't deal with the loss of control and he couldn't help but chase after her you're cured you'll hear testimony in this case but Nicole's mother and I should tell her about some of the phone conversations she had with him. accused in 1992 and some even more recent, you know one conversation, he told her, she told him, he said, all my friends tell me I should leave her alone, just forget it.

I just get on with my own life and when Mrs. Brown said why don't you do that, let her go if you let her go and maybe she'll come back, you know, I can, you know, I can't help it, I can't let it go, he couldn't let her go. he couldn't help but chase after her, he couldn't leave her alone, he couldn't bear the loss of control and because she had left her home and moved somewhere else and set up her own home or just her own home and started setting up her own. own. relationships, he did the only thing he could do to gain control, try to regain control, try to find out what was going on with her, so he stopped in Stockton when she left Rockingham in January 92 and set up a new home in Gretna.

Also in Brentwood, Green began dating a man named Keith Keith the Lance, who and she got a babysitter for her two children. Every time Keith and Nicole went out, not always but often enough, he would show up, they went to a nightclub and Keith will tell you about this, they will be here to testify, the defendants showed up, they went to a restaurant called cita that had just opened Nicole and Keith and some other friends there had a table and they started eating dinner and while they were sitting there eating dinner and that will be reflected in the evidence and in the testimony and what he did was he walked into the restaurant, he saw Nicole and Keith and their other friends, he went to another table, the chair was facing the opposite direction, well, he grabbed the chair, turned it around and sat there looking at Keith and Nicole while Keith I will be here to tell you it was a terribly intimidating experience why was there another incident at Mezzaluna Nicole was there Keith was there the defendant appeared suddenly drove in front of the restaurant got out of the car walked to the table with put his hands on a receipt and it said: I'm OJ Simpson and she is still my wife when she filed for divorce.

I moved out of her house and there are more and you will hear about the other incidents. There is more evidence of harassment in this case. You will find out that one night Keith and Nicole went to a comedy show and after the show they went to Nicole's house in Gretna Green, it was around 3:00 in the morning in her living room, the children, the children. They were upstairs sleeping it was 3 in the morning and Keith in Nicole made love on the couch but they weren't alone there was someone watching there was someone looking out the window it was a defendant at 3 in the morning he was looking out the Kohl's window watching her make love with another man.

He walked right into their house and he was beside himself and he was angry and he said some very bad things, but one of the things he said to Keith and Nicole was that he said, I looked at you last night I looked at you when I saw all the evidence will show that that It's behavior to say the least but the evidence will also show that this is all part of this cycle it's all part of this dominant theme in your relationship this is all part of your need to know everything about it to know where she is - no, she he's with her to know what he's doing to control her, it's control, it's about control and even though he didn't interrupt him during the middle of the act and he didn't.

He didn't hit Keith and he didn't hit Nicole. He still looked so he wouldn't know and to control her he had to confront her with what he knew to intimidate her and prevent her from doing it again. It's all about control. Well, over the months, you know Nicole still wanted to believe and they tried reconciliation and they failed and they tried again and Nicole was as much a part of that as the defendant was, but there was a situation in October of 1993, a incident. In another control incident, he forced his way through the back door of her home in Gretna Green, forced the door, entered her home without her permission, without her knowledge, and confronted her and frightened her, frightened her and frightened her so much that she called 911 for police assistance and she will listen to that tape, the tape of that 9-1-1 call and she will meet with the 9-1-1 operator and she will listen to the defendant who saw Keith and Nicole have sex in April 1992 and when you listen to the 911 tape from October 1993, but that night, when a tape was a revealing glimpse into their relationship, that's for sure and it's also an example of the private side of this defendant, his private face, the other man, the man in the courtroom, the man who is on trial here today and you were out here in the cold talking on the phone to the operator and as you listen to her you can't help but discern by the tone of her voice and the things that she says that she is a tough woman but that she is also scared and intimidated and not only that, but she feels that her situation is desperate, the evidence will show that in October 1993 Nicole her situation was desperate and she was helpless back in 1989, the defendant said that the police had been to the house eight times before had never done anything Nicole said the same thing on the phone to the 911 operator in 1993 the situation was desperate and she was helpless and it can be inferred from the evidence that Nicole Brown expected or had none expectation that anyone would ever do anything for this defendant because he hit her there was no help and she didn't expect any help, but she will listen to that phone call and she will hear the defendant, she will get a real sense of the speeder that he instilled in her and he does. hit.

He didn't hit her that day and he didn't punch her. He didn't go around the house to see who was there, but he didn't hurt her that day. Still, she stayed still. They were still involved, not just in him. I had the feeling that He was the father of her children, but they still tried to reconcile and during the months after October 1993 they tried to meet and failed, they tried to meet and failed and in May a very nice gift, a jewel. and they tried to reconcile for lack of a better description, but the evidence will show that it was a very brief attempt because a few days after Nicole left him, she woke up to the true reality of her situation, she could no longer be bought.

She couldn't live like this and the evidence will show that she let the defendant know that it was over, this is see you and this was significant in the mind of the defendant, ladies and gentlemen, it was something that had never happened before he did. do things to her he would try to appease her by giving her things and she would accept those things and they would reconcile but not this day this day she could not be appeased she could not be bought she could not be bribed she had had